Doctors usually treat anybody even people who brought the illness upon themselves. But when you don't have enough of them to care for everybody, it would be fair that at least the ones who took more risks would get treatment last. However, there's no way to keep track. — Vince

So? You're not addressing or recognizing the point.

Again: if I decide that I am going to treat you if you get ill (I didn't ask you - there's no agreement between us - I have just decided to treat you if you get ill) am I now entitled to regulate your behaviour? Am I now entitled to insist you stay indoors if a virus is on the loose?

The answer is obvious. It's 'no'.

As pointed out previously, the forum has a rash of Sovereign Citizens.

Perhaps a vaccination...?

Of course you know what an atomized society is -- all individuals without social obligations -- Margaret Thatcher's "there is no such thing as 'society'" ideal. Don't be obtuse.

The point is, since you need reading assistance, we do live in a society with obligations, Maggie T. not withstanding, and what we do individually affects other people.

Obtuse abject obliviousness would 'work' for you IF you lived in an atomized society (like the isolation wing of a prison) but you don't--as far as I can tell, but appearances can be misleading.

am I now entitled to regulate your behaviour? Am I now entitled to insist you stay indoors if a virus is on the loose? — Bartricks

Public Health officials have the authority (and power) required to regulate behavior and impose quarantines or vaccination requirements, if the threat is dire and high enough. For the common cold, no. For ebola, yes. For Covid 19, yes. For polio, yes. For mumps, measles, and chickenpox, yes.

Actually, we are not allowed to not treat you from self-inflicted things. We could keep track of self inflicted disease and injury fairly easily, most of it is already in your chart now anyway.

If not treating for self inflicted issues were an option we could likely cut 30% from the healthcare budget overnight. That would also result in monster job loss. Healthcare has lots of direct and indirect employees.

You may have agreed to treat me without asking me because of the oath you swear, but I don't believe this oath is without conditions. It works well in normal times, but when resources become scarce the agreement should be allowed to change. Why? Because dead doctors won't be very useful for society.

For example, the change could be caring first for the ones who have taken steps to protect themselves and others(and I understand how stupid that would be). How do you enforce it? You can't, so you have to take a different approach, like lockdowns (which in my opinion are the result of countries being totally unprepared for a pandemic)

Did you meant to respond to me or Bartricks? The response seems more geared to me, but I could be wrong.

Of course you know what an atomized society is -- all individuals without social obligations -- Margaret Thatcher's "there is no such thing as 'society'" ideal. Don't be obtuse. — Bitter Crank

No, I don't know what you use the term 'atomized society' to mean. It is not a term I have ever used in my life.

Now, it seems that you mean by it a collection of individuals who do not have any social obligations.

What do you mean by a social obligation? Do you mean obligations to be social? Or what?

Note, at no point have I suggested that individuals lack moral obligations to one another. We do have moral obligations to one another, including not to make each other do things. So, it seems I do not deny the 'atomized society' at least as you use the term.

I, for instance, have an obligation not to lock you down. Would you agree?

Public Health officials have the authority (and power) required to regulate behavior and impose quarantines or vaccination requirements, if the threat is dire and high enough. For the common cold, no. For ebola, yes. For Covid 19, yes. For polio, yes. For mumps, measles, and chickenpox, yes. — Bitter Crank

We're talking about moral rights. You don't need to describe the law of the land (plus I am not in your land).

So, put down your big book of laws, and engage your reason. Am I entitled - morally entitled - to turn down life saving treatment?

I have a bit of a cough right now (not covid induced, but smoke induced). Can you force me to take some cough medicine? Not 'are you physically able', but are you 'morally entitled' to make me take it for my own good?

No. That's the answer, yes?

So, put down your big book of laws, and engage your reason. Am I entitled - morally entitled - to turn down life saving treatment? — Bartricks

If it is reason you want, then our response is obvious:

Not only do we think you are entitled to turn down life saving treatment, we INSIST you turn it down. In fact, you should avoid coming anywhere close to a health care facility -- even veterinarian. Who knows? You might have kennel cough. Best start digging a hole and then get into it.

Once more: if I have an illness that can be cured, but I do not wish to take the medicine that will cure me, am I entitled not to take it? Would you be doing me wrong if you ignored my wishes and forced me to take it?

The answers are obvious: yes, I am entitled not to take it, and yes, you'd be doing wrong - violating my rights - if you forced me to take it.

So, it is more important to respect my autonomy - my right to make my own decisions about how things go with my life - than it is to preserve my life.

Well, by the same token, if I know that by visiting Jane I will die, but I wish to visit her anyway, then you're not entitled to stop me.

So, if I want to go and see someone who may have a virus, I am entitled to do so, and they're entitled to see me. No one is entitled to stop us meeting.

If you don't want to meet me, you're entitled to stop me meeting you by staying indoors. I am not entitled to force my company on you.

But by the same token, you are not allowed to force me to stay indoors.

Am I entitled - morally entitled - to turn down life saving treatment? — Bartricks

I would suggest that the real question is: Am I morally entitled to force life saving treatment upon you, regardless of your stance on it?

That is the crux of the lockdown issue.

I don't give a damn about coronavirus. To me it is just another bug. I find the morbidity and mortality rates associated with it hardly noticeable. Ebola is impressive, this isn't, at least, not in the "dire threat" department.

The reaction to this bug is mob panic, nothing more. However, as things sit, the mob IS forcing rule upon everyone, regardless of the actual threat. The perceived threat is enough and reality be damned. Current rules require that we hide in the basement, instead of working the farm, because it might rain, and we could then get wet, resulting in the death of our sickly. No one is allowed to mention the long reaching impacts of NOT working the farm; because that would be counter the mob direction. Don't stand in the way of a stampede, it ends badly for you. Run with the cattle and try to maybe calm them a little.

Just for the heck of it, where in the world are people prevented from meeting?

On and off, the world over. There is a virus in some places, and most governments have, in response, prevented their citizenry from meeting or placed severe restrictions on how many people you can meet and where. The virus is called 'Covid 19'. Perhaps none of this made the news where you are.

As I see it, what these various thought experiments do is motivate the idea that lockdowns violate our rights. I actually think they do this regardless of how dangerous the virus may be. This virus is, as you say, as nothing compared to ebola or the bubonic plague - it's just a particularly nasty flu and if there had been no news coverage of it I think the vast bulk of us wouldn't have noticed it. But my view would be the same if we were dealing with much, much more dangerous viruses.

The point of the 'turning down medical treatment' thought experiment is to demonstrate that it is more important to respect an individual's autonomy, than it is to save their life.

We can then recognize that if two people wish to meet, knowing full well that by doing so they will both die, then it is more important to respect their autonomy than it is to ensure they do not die.
And then from there we can recognize that it is an outrage - graver than intervening in the above cases - to prevent people from freely deciding to meet when they know that there's a virus out and about that they may catch and may kill some of them.

Please explain how every death is a tragedy. Then explain how deaths are bad. I don't follow either of these assumptions. It's like rain is bad and when rivers flow into the ocean it is a tragedy. Natural, normal and predictable linear systems, somehow bad and tragic? — Book273

Was it Stalin who said a single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic? He'd know, he killed more people than Hitler but he was FDR's good buddy so we let Stalin have half of Europe after the war. Patton was right, we should have kept on going.

Anyway, "every death is a tragedy" is something you say when you're trying to get people to see that there is a balance between avoiding a death today only to create two deaths tomorrow, and they call you names because you're "heartless" and "an uncaring prick" and so forth. But I do believe every death is a tragedy, yet the two we cause tomorrow by avoiding one today need to be considered.

Most deaths are perfectly normal and not tragic in the least. — synthesis

They're tragic to the deceased's friends and loved ones. I'm willing to stipulate that the covid deaths are bad but so are the collateral deaths and misery we're inflicting with the endless politicized lockdowns.

Nope. They can't see past the headlines. Not ever. — Book273

A year of hysterical media propaganda has really messed with people's minds.

I watched a Youtube video last night about Edward Bernays, the father of public relations. He was Freud's American nephew. He was the first person to realize that you can sell the public a war using the same techniques you use to get women to start smoking cigarettes ("Freedom torches!"). His name is forgotten but we live in the world he invented.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays

Once more: if I have an illness that can be cured, but I do not wish to take the medicine that will cure me, am I entitled not to take it? Would you be doing me wrong if you ignored my wishes and forced me to take it? — Bartricks

The wish to die from the course of a disease can be addressed in an advanced directive. In the directive you inform your doctors of the point at which you wish treatment to cease (especially if you are unable to speak for yourself). If you are awake and apparently mentally competent you can refuse further treatment live and in person. So, yes, you can refuse care, and it makes sense to do so IF and WHEN you have determined that life will not be meaningful to you even if you survive.

I have been present with friends who refused further care, and they went home to die (not very quickly, in one case).

Well, by the same token, if I know that by visiting Jane I will die, but I wish to visit her anyway, then you're not entitled to stop me. — Bartricks

So yes: You, individually, are free to visit Jane, even though you know you will contract her disease and will then die. Jack is free to visit Jane and Harry, even though he knows he will contract their disease and die. Jane and Harry are free to invite Jack to attend their party, as long as they have informed Jack of the risks.

There is a shift there from you knowingly taking risk upon yourself with Jane. Jack is similarly free to knowingly assume risks. Jane and Harry would be acting in very bad faith IF they invited Jack to a party (or a game of croquet) WITHOUT informing Jack of the risk.

Are 100 people free to hold a really big, wild sex orgy where several diseases will be contracted by many people?

There is another shift: large numbers of people accepting an ambiguous risk.

I would say that the public's stake in individual behavior increases as the number of people involved increases. You deciding to die from your illness is tolerable from the public's point of view. You are competent to discharge your life in that manner,

The further we get from one person deciding how to dispose of their own life, the more freighted the matter becomes. The 100-person orgy will eventually affect many more than 100 people who did not consent to the consequences.

These are not hypotheticals. People do, actually, organize sex parties where many people will engage in risky behavior. People serve alcohol to people who will leave the place very drunk,People hold weddings in indoor spaces where everyone will be at some risk from Covid-19. Bar owners open up and maybe 200-300 people show up at an indoor space where Covid-19 can be transmitted.

Your individual situation doesn't map to large social gatherings.

I think that the question of rights is complex because I certainly wouldn't be wishing to go out and interacting with people and spreading the virus. However, the problem is that the rules are so extreme and we don't really know when or if this will end at all. In England, extreme sanctions have been in place for a year with very brief forms of certain rules being relaxed.

We have the vaccines in place but there is so much uncertainty about the new variants. In England there is some hope for people to meet up in outdoor venues in mid April, but even this, is dependent on the data. There is also speculation of a third wave. I just don't see how we are going to survive physically or mentally if this keeps being extended further and further into the future. It is so hard to know if this will become better by summer, autumn or whether the whole situation is just going to become indefinite, because last year many spoke of it all ending by Christmas, and the exact opposite happened.

It is a time of all social activities being forbidden, and finding work being almost impossible. So, I just daren't think what is going to happen long term. Also, the messages of the media almost seem to make one feel guilty for wanting to meet others or go out. Also, on the other hand, I have felt guilt tripped by people wishing to meet up. Of course, I am sure that many are breaking the rules daily, which is one of the problems, but this is probably the result of the extreme of life as we know it has been taken away from us completely.

I go to the grocery store, indeed, I can go to all the stores. I can go to many places outdoors. Carry-out at many restaurants, eat-in in some. Not business as usual, but nothing preventing me from meeting anyone I care to meet. It appears to me that what you're writing and thinking to write maybe don't agree. So take a breath a try to figure out what you are trying to express.

But my view would be the same if we were dealing with much, much more dangerous viruses. — Bartricks

Ever hear of Typhoid Mary?

They're tragic to the deceased's friends and loved ones. I'm willing to stipulate that the covid deaths are bad but so are the collateral deaths and misery we're inflicting with the endless politicized lockdowns. — fishfry

Most people who died were in their 80s and were going to die of something anyway.

Although people are saddened at another's passing, if they have lived a full life, I am not sure family and friends would see this as being tragic. After all, it's the only thing we know about our lives (that they end).

The lockdowns, OTOH, are the greatest power-grab and policy flaw in the West maybe ever. The fallout from these lockdowns will be felt for decades hence.

Lockdowns are unjust, cruel, stupid, and designed for the purpose of protecting their own interests, which in many cases is their “universal” healthcare systems. Where quarantining was once a method of containing a virus, now it is a method of containing an entire citizenry, whether they have a virus or not. The use of prison terms to describe it, at least, was not euphemistic.

But it also reveals the incompetence of the state. Forcing the citizenry to stop working, to put them under house arrest, and to deny them the basic freedoms they were all promised was not the best method of containing a virus—it was just the easiest one. How quickly they sacrificed our most basic human rights to their ignorance.

Lockdowns are unjust, cruel, stupid, and designed for the purpose of protecting their own interests, which in many cases is their “universal” healthcare systems. — NOS4A2

Evidence? And who exactly is locked down and where?

The lockdowns, OTOH, are the greatest power-grab and policy flaw in the West maybe ever. The fallout from these lockdowns will be felt for decades hence. — synthesis

That's my belief. We save a life today and kill two tomorrow.

The WSJ just published an article the other day.

The Lockdowns Weren’t Worth It
There’s a reason no government has done a cost-benefit analysis: The policy would surely fail.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-lockdowns-werent-worth-it-11615485413?mod=djemalertNEWS

And

Did The Shutdowns Save Lives? A Year Later, Statistical Analysis Suggests Not
https://thefederalist.com/2021/03/12/did-the-shutdowns-save-lives-a-year-later-statistical-analysis-suggests-not/

What the past year has shown the ruling class is how easy it is to make docile sheep out of the populace. I don't think this is going to end well.

And who exactly is locked down and where? — tim wood

Disingenuous to the point of gaslighting. You deny there are lockdowns? Political overreach?

not one for abstract thought are you?
This thread is about the justice or otherwise of a policy. It is not my attempt to describe what you are currently allowed to do.
Presumably you often confuse theories and diaries.

And who exactly is locked down and where?
— tim wood

Disingenuous to the point of gaslighting. You deny there are lockdowns? Political overreach? — fishfry

You and Bartricks claim that either you-all, or other people, are locked down. Maybe in China. But I am specifically unaware of anyone anywhere being locked down, I submit to you your florid language has contaminated your thinking, making of it a foul thing on a philosophy site. Or maybe you just plain do not know what "lock-down" means. So what is it? Ignorance? Or something worse?

Your individual situation doesn't map to large social gatherings — Bitter Crank

Finally someone said it!

And there is something else ugly and unspeakable that has appeared here and in the other Covid thread, and that is the observation - evidence for which I have not seen - that Covid-19 is mainly fatal to old people and in particular to people sick with other ailments. The claim is that Covid-19 did not really kill those people, but that they would have died anyway. The implications being that their deaths some how do not count and are therefore not important. And that "we" young and healthy Aryan types should not be inconvenienced by masks and such things or constrained in our pursuits of beer and hook-ups, because Covid-19, just another flu, we're impervious to.

Such views are morally and ethically bankrupt as well as plain wrong, any persons holding them to that extent intellectually impoverished or outright challenged. There is also the notion that saving life today will cost more in the long run. Well, it might in some cases. But just exactly how do you do the bookkeeping on that? On the basis of exactly what assessment of conjectural possibility do you let actual people actually die today? And those projected problems are not future deaths by Covid, but as a projection of the behaviors of people inconvenienced. Does anyone besides myself get a whiff of fascist white-supremacist rant and cant, here?